Episode 483: Made Possible By Listeners Like You
Date July 2, 2014 Summary Ben and Sam answer listener emails about meaningless splits, data leaks, exploiting unwritten rules, and more. Topics * Throwing MLB games * Exploiting unwritten rules * Meaningless splits * Stars & scrubs vs. balanced rotation * Using pitchers to pinch run * Front office data leaks * AL & NL pitcher stat differences * Episode 482 follow-up: Astros trade talk leaks * Rich Hill trade Intro Yo Am I, "Explaining Cricket" Banter * Koji Uehara's latest start * Episode 466 follow-up: Sean Doolittle walked someone. Email Questions * Owen (Wellington, NZ): "Hi Ben and Sam (I always think of it that way but I have no idea know why), I've been thinking about asking a question for about 350 episodes and decided now was the time. My question this week is related to that oft mentioned sport on the podcast, cricket. Over the last few months there has been a pretty large scandal involving some former international cricket players involving match fixing in various leagues around the league. However strangely in most of these cases only two out of the eleven players have been accused of any wrongdoing. I think that in cricket one player can often have a bigger impact than in baseball as a general rule, and I would not be comfortable betting on a game in which I had only gotten two players in the bag. What if someone else on the team had a crazy game and he lost the entirety of your Swiss bank account? Therefore my question is, how many baseball players on a team perhaps hypothetically equal teams assumed or I think more interestingly a massively favored team (I think you'd have to exclude the starting pitcher) would you need to have bought before you would say that you'd be 90% confident that your team would lose." * Sean: "Let's say there's a team in the midst of the wild card chase and they have a team OBP that is the league wide mean (currently the Orioles at .318). Let's say this hypothetical decided as a means of scoring more runs than they were going to as blatantly as possible flaunt every unwritten rule. Bat flips on infield flyouts, pimping warning track shots, tagging as hard as possible every time, and all 24 members were 100% committed to this strategy. How much of an increase in OBP do you think they could achieve thanks to all the necessary hit by pitches and do you think at any point the league would wisen up to their efforts?" * Mike: "Tonight 26th the Cubs who admittedly do not have a logical leadoff hitter batted Ryan Sweeney first against Doug Fister. Sweeney is hitting .200/.247/.244 this season but the Cubs were facing Doug Fister. Sweeney is hitting .400/.538/.600 against Fister in his career. My question is which is more ridiculous, putting stock in a below average hitter who has been great against a particular pitcher over a number of years, or putting stock in a below average pitcher who has done well against a particular team in his career (obviously against different players over a number of years)?" * Jonathan: "Part of the Brewers' success this year has been having a rotation of 2-3 win guys, average plus to use Joe Sheehan's term, eat innings and keep them in basically every game. It seems like many teams take more of a stars and scrubs approach with one or two terrific pitchers and a few back end guys whom they hope will not fall off a cliff when it is their turn. None of the Brewers' pitchers is great but they also rank high in both quality starts and game score average, which day in day out is something most ball clubs would seem to find very valuable, even if the skills basis for those accomplishments is debatable. I recognize that success in the postseason is another matter, but if you were constructing a rotation to get to the postseason and you had a choice to make, would you prefer a rotation whose talent is distributed fairly equally across the board, or with the more common 1 and 2 than 4 and 5 sort of approach? I suspect you've considered a question like this before, probably in the abstract, but here we have what looks to be a successful example of a distributed approach." * Michael: "John Gibbons has used pitchers to pinch run a half dozen times or so this season. Some of this has been because Dioner Navarro and Adam Lind have been hurt and only available for pinch hitting duty while interleague has rolled around. Some of it's because Navarro and Lind are slow even when healthy and playing in the AL not to mention that the Jays have rightfully carried three catchers for the year and not so rightfully eight relievers for other portions, sometimes at the same time! I guess my question is what team in history has used the most pitchers as pitch runners. Which teams and players have had the most success if that's even possible to measure in such a small sample?" * Brett: "Are the Astros the most interesting team that could have had a data leak? Which team would you be most interested in hearing about?" * Kevin: "With the Ernesto Frieri/Jason Grilli trade this past week I was thinking about the difference between AL and NL pitcher stats. I know that NL pitchers usually have better rate stats because they get to pitch to the opposing team's pitcher rather than a DH, but is it different for relief pitchers? By the time relief pitchers come in the opposing starter has been or will be swapped out for a position player. Is the DH effect less pronounced for AL and NL relief pitchers than it is for starters? Also, I went with Ben and Sam with this email purely out of alphabetical order so don't get too down on yourself Sam." Play Index * Sam excitedly announces that it will be a live play index segment inspired by Michael's email. He looks to see which teams have had the most instances of pitchers as pinch runners since 1988. * In 2011 the Cincinnati Reds used pitchers to pinch run 17 times during the season. Mike Leake pinch ran 9 times during that season. The 1988 Expos used pitchers as pinch runners 16 times during the season. * The 1963 Cleveland Indians used pitchers as pinch runners 36 times during the season. Notes * On a $10 bet with Sam, Ben would be willing to bet an additional dollar of his money per player (excluding starting pitchers) that he knew was going to throw the game. * Ben & Sam think that a team flaunting unwritten rules would likely just get men on base in low leverage situations. * Sam says that stats for a player's performance against a certain team is one of the worst examples of "random numbers being compiled to form a narrative". * Ben thinks the 2001 Diamondbacks, with Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling, were one of the classic examples of a stars and scrubs rotation. * Ben would like to know more about the Cardinals recent trade talks. Sam wants to know more about the Rays and Dodgers front offices * This year there is a bigger ERA gap between AL and NL relievers than starters. * Sam expressing his confusion about Kevin's question, "I completely upside down, I am Joseph Gordon Levitt in Inception fighting in a room without gravity." * The Red Sox traded Rich Hill to the Angels for cash. Links * Effectively Wild Episode 483: Made Possible By Listeners Like You Category:Email Episodes Category:Episodes